Bill Text: MN HF2683 | 2013-2014 | 88th Legislature | Introduced
Bill Title: Intervention requirement response established, and committee established to review statewide testing.
Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Democrat 4-0)
Status: (Introduced - Dead) 2014-03-04 - Authors added Mariani and Benson, J. [HF2683 Detail]
Download: Minnesota-2013-HF2683-Introduced.html
1.2relating to education; establishing response to intervention requirements;
1.3establishing a committee to review statewide testing; requiring rulemaking.
1.4BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
1.5 Section 1. RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION.
1.6 Subdivision 1. Purpose. The legislature finds that a more focused effort is needed in
1.7Minnesota's district and charter schools to personalize teaching and learning to improve
1.8the academic performance of all students. Of special importance is to significantly
1.9improve the academic performance of underachieving students of color in order to close
1.10the gap between these students and their peers meeting the state academic standards. The
1.11purpose of this section is to require the use of a response to intervention model in all
1.12schools that will result in:
1.13(1) improving the learning of all students so they meet or exceed the state academic
1.14standards and close the achievement gap;
1.15(2) students receiving assistance as soon as they are not on target to be proficient
1.16and before they fail;
1.17(3) using formative assessments that are valid, which may be used multiple times,
1.18and that provide data that are immediately available to teachers thereby making the data
1.19useful for instruction;
1.20(4) reducing the need for students to be placed in special education programs because
1.21of improved regular classroom core curriculum and early interventions with students;
1.22(5) reducing the paperwork and other procedures resulting in teachers spending
1.23more time on instruction and cost savings;
2.1(6) improved coordination and alignment of the regular classroom and remedial
2.2instruction staff;
2.3(7) periodic valid data reports for the site, the district, and the state demonstrating
2.4learning growth and providing accountability; and
2.5(8) modifying the state test so that it serves both state and local accountability
2.6purposes and also formative data which is useful for instructional decision making with
2.7individual students and thereby eliminating the current expensive and time-consuming
2.8process of having dual state tests.
2.9 Subd. 2. Definitions. (a) For purposes of this section, the following terms have
2.10the meanings given.
2.11(b) "Presenting problem" means the degree of discrepancy between the academic
2.12standards and a student's performance as measured by valid assessments.
2.13(c) "Progress monitoring" has the definition given in Minnesota Statutes, section
2.14125A.56, subdivision 2.
2.15(d) "Response to Intervention (RtI)" is a multitiered system of support and prevention
2.16model designed to identify students as soon as they have a presenting problem in reading
2.17and math, provide scientifically valid interventions, and conduct frequent progress
2.18monitoring to inform instruction. RtI does not require the use of a specific curriculum.
2.19(e) "Valid intervention" means the systematic use of a technique, program, or
2.20practice designed to improve learning or performance in specific areas of pupil need and
2.21selected to the extent possible based on its scientific validation.
2.22 Subd. 3. Usage. Each district and charter school site shall use a response to
2.23intervention model at grades consistent with the rules of the commissioner. Sites are
2.24encouraged to use the RtI model in prekindergarten.
2.25 Subd. 4. Rulemaking. (a) The commissioner shall adopt rules to establish a
2.26response to intervention model. The commissioner shall repeal Minnesota Rules, part
2.273525.1341, and shall adopt a rule which contains the requirements in paragraphs (b) to
2.28(i). The commissioner shall adopt the response to intervention rule not later than August
2.2930, 2015, with an implementation date of August 1, 2017.
2.30(b) The reading curriculum used in the regular classrooms must (1) be periodically
2.31reviewed to ensure that this curriculum has a scientific research base, and (2) use a
2.32multitiered model of instructional support with the use of a collaborative model among
2.33classroom teachers and remedial teachers for the intervention process as defined in
2.34Minnesota Statutes, section 125A.56, subdivision 2.
2.35(c) Benchmarking assessment must occur three times during the year using either
2.36the state assessment tool or a tool that reliably predicts proficiency on state tests. This
3.1benchmarking must be either of: (1) all students at each site, or (2) the district may
3.2determine to benchmark only the students, identified by classroom teachers, suspected of
3.3not being on target to be proficient in reading and mathematics.
3.4(d) A presenting problem must be described in objective terms using data collection
3.5procedures including reviews of existing information, interviews, and informal testing that
3.6focus on alterable characteristics of the instructional environment.
3.7(e) Data collection and problem analysis must occur using a systematic and
3.8valid data-based process to identify the parts of the standards with which the student
3.9is experiencing difficulty.
3.10(f) Interventions must be designed based on the data collected, the defined problem,
3.11parent input, and professional teacher decisions about the potential effectiveness of
3.12interventions.
3.13(g) An intervention plan must include learning targets and interventions aligned
3.14with the learning targets and standards along with a progress monitoring process and
3.15designation of the educators responsible for implementation.
3.16(h) Data collection procedures must be individually tailored, valid, and reliable and
3.17allow for frequent measurements of the impact of the interventions. A parent's right to
3.18a special education evaluation shall not be denied because of the instruction provided
3.19under this paragraph.
3.20(i) A process must exist to ensure that interventions are implemented with fidelity in
3.21a manner consistent with the intervention plan.
3.22 Subd. 5. Assistance to sites. (a) Beginning not later than August 1, 2014, the
3.23commissioner shall provide leadership and assistance to districts and chartered schools to
3.24enable them to successfully implement the requirements of this section. To provide this
3.25state leadership, the commissioner may:
3.26(1) assign the responsibility of site RtI assistance to the regional centers of
3.27excellence under Minnesota Statutes, section 120B.115;
3.28(2) contract with the St. Croix River Education District (SCRED) to reestablish the
3.29Minnesota Response to Intervention (RtI) Center;
3.30(3) develop a request for proposals and invite proposals from organizations
3.31throughout the world to provide assistance to Minnesota sites;
3.32(4) develop a consortium with the department, postsecondary institutions,
3.33professional organizations both within Minnesota and throughout the world to provide
3.34assistance to Minnesota sites; or
3.35(5) other methods as determined by the commissioner.
4.1(b) The commissioner is encouraged to use revenue provided through the Elementary
4.2and Secondary Education Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act for
4.3assistance under paragraph (a).
4.4(c) The Response to Intervention Center assistance initiative shall have the following
4.5responsibilities:
4.6(1) assist the commissioner to develop rules as provided by this section;
4.7(2) develop RtI guidelines for district sites and chartered schools to enable them to
4.8plan and implement an RtI model consistent with the rules of the commissioner;
4.9(3) provide professional development, coaching, and consultation for sites on the
4.10RtI rules and guidelines including scientifically based instruction within a multitiered
4.11model of instructional supports, standards aligned instruction, and the use of formative
4.12assessment to guide instructional decision making;
4.13(4) collaborate with ServeMinnesota for the services of reading and math master
4.14coaches to assist sites with interventions;
4.15(5) collaborate with education departments at higher education institutions to
4.16incorporate the RtI research into applicable licensure programs;
4.17(6) consult with the commissioner of education to evaluate the learning and financial
4.18impact of the RtI model in Minnesota;
4.19(7) disseminate models for evaluating classroom reading curriculum to better ensure
4.20that student needs will be met; and
4.21(8) disseminate research-based interventions to be used with students who are not on
4.22target to meet the proficiency standards in reading and mathematics.
4.23 Sec. 2. STATEWIDE TESTING COMMITTEE.
4.24Notwithstanding any other law or rule to the contrary, the commissioner of education
4.25shall establish a committee with the education research community and the vendor of the
4.26state testing program for the following purposes:
4.27(1) determine how the state test can be of greater formative assessment value for
4.28educational decision-making purposes for individual students. The purpose shall be to
4.29reduce the need for sites to use both the state test for accountability purposes and a second
4.30for formative assessment purposes;
4.31(2) how the state test can be administered in fall, winter, and spring for benchmarking
4.32purposes if the sites choose to do so;
4.33(3) add a value added analysis provision;
4.34(4) determine predictive validity of the state test to career pathways as a part of the
4.35World's Best Workforce Program defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 120B.11;
5.1(5) determine how estimated targets on the state test are equivalent to the National
5.2Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP), Trends in International Mathematics and
5.3Science Study (TIMSS), and Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA).
5.4This will enable sites to make international comparisons; and
5.5(6) other tasks as determined by the commissioner.
1.3establishing a committee to review statewide testing; requiring rulemaking.
1.4BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
1.5 Section 1. RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION.
1.6 Subdivision 1. Purpose. The legislature finds that a more focused effort is needed in
1.7Minnesota's district and charter schools to personalize teaching and learning to improve
1.8the academic performance of all students. Of special importance is to significantly
1.9improve the academic performance of underachieving students of color in order to close
1.10the gap between these students and their peers meeting the state academic standards. The
1.11purpose of this section is to require the use of a response to intervention model in all
1.12schools that will result in:
1.13(1) improving the learning of all students so they meet or exceed the state academic
1.14standards and close the achievement gap;
1.15(2) students receiving assistance as soon as they are not on target to be proficient
1.16and before they fail;
1.17(3) using formative assessments that are valid, which may be used multiple times,
1.18and that provide data that are immediately available to teachers thereby making the data
1.19useful for instruction;
1.20(4) reducing the need for students to be placed in special education programs because
1.21of improved regular classroom core curriculum and early interventions with students;
1.22(5) reducing the paperwork and other procedures resulting in teachers spending
1.23more time on instruction and cost savings;
2.1(6) improved coordination and alignment of the regular classroom and remedial
2.2instruction staff;
2.3(7) periodic valid data reports for the site, the district, and the state demonstrating
2.4learning growth and providing accountability; and
2.5(8) modifying the state test so that it serves both state and local accountability
2.6purposes and also formative data which is useful for instructional decision making with
2.7individual students and thereby eliminating the current expensive and time-consuming
2.8process of having dual state tests.
2.9 Subd. 2. Definitions. (a) For purposes of this section, the following terms have
2.10the meanings given.
2.11(b) "Presenting problem" means the degree of discrepancy between the academic
2.12standards and a student's performance as measured by valid assessments.
2.13(c) "Progress monitoring" has the definition given in Minnesota Statutes, section
2.14125A.56, subdivision 2.
2.15(d) "Response to Intervention (RtI)" is a multitiered system of support and prevention
2.16model designed to identify students as soon as they have a presenting problem in reading
2.17and math, provide scientifically valid interventions, and conduct frequent progress
2.18monitoring to inform instruction. RtI does not require the use of a specific curriculum.
2.19(e) "Valid intervention" means the systematic use of a technique, program, or
2.20practice designed to improve learning or performance in specific areas of pupil need and
2.21selected to the extent possible based on its scientific validation.
2.22 Subd. 3. Usage. Each district and charter school site shall use a response to
2.23intervention model at grades consistent with the rules of the commissioner. Sites are
2.24encouraged to use the RtI model in prekindergarten.
2.25 Subd. 4. Rulemaking. (a) The commissioner shall adopt rules to establish a
2.26response to intervention model. The commissioner shall repeal Minnesota Rules, part
2.273525.1341, and shall adopt a rule which contains the requirements in paragraphs (b) to
2.28(i). The commissioner shall adopt the response to intervention rule not later than August
2.2930, 2015, with an implementation date of August 1, 2017.
2.30(b) The reading curriculum used in the regular classrooms must (1) be periodically
2.31reviewed to ensure that this curriculum has a scientific research base, and (2) use a
2.32multitiered model of instructional support with the use of a collaborative model among
2.33classroom teachers and remedial teachers for the intervention process as defined in
2.34Minnesota Statutes, section 125A.56, subdivision 2.
2.35(c) Benchmarking assessment must occur three times during the year using either
2.36the state assessment tool or a tool that reliably predicts proficiency on state tests. This
3.1benchmarking must be either of: (1) all students at each site, or (2) the district may
3.2determine to benchmark only the students, identified by classroom teachers, suspected of
3.3not being on target to be proficient in reading and mathematics.
3.4(d) A presenting problem must be described in objective terms using data collection
3.5procedures including reviews of existing information, interviews, and informal testing that
3.6focus on alterable characteristics of the instructional environment.
3.7(e) Data collection and problem analysis must occur using a systematic and
3.8valid data-based process to identify the parts of the standards with which the student
3.9is experiencing difficulty.
3.10(f) Interventions must be designed based on the data collected, the defined problem,
3.11parent input, and professional teacher decisions about the potential effectiveness of
3.12interventions.
3.13(g) An intervention plan must include learning targets and interventions aligned
3.14with the learning targets and standards along with a progress monitoring process and
3.15designation of the educators responsible for implementation.
3.16(h) Data collection procedures must be individually tailored, valid, and reliable and
3.17allow for frequent measurements of the impact of the interventions. A parent's right to
3.18a special education evaluation shall not be denied because of the instruction provided
3.19under this paragraph.
3.20(i) A process must exist to ensure that interventions are implemented with fidelity in
3.21a manner consistent with the intervention plan.
3.22 Subd. 5. Assistance to sites. (a) Beginning not later than August 1, 2014, the
3.23commissioner shall provide leadership and assistance to districts and chartered schools to
3.24enable them to successfully implement the requirements of this section. To provide this
3.25state leadership, the commissioner may:
3.26(1) assign the responsibility of site RtI assistance to the regional centers of
3.27excellence under Minnesota Statutes, section 120B.115;
3.28(2) contract with the St. Croix River Education District (SCRED) to reestablish the
3.29Minnesota Response to Intervention (RtI) Center;
3.30(3) develop a request for proposals and invite proposals from organizations
3.31throughout the world to provide assistance to Minnesota sites;
3.32(4) develop a consortium with the department, postsecondary institutions,
3.33professional organizations both within Minnesota and throughout the world to provide
3.34assistance to Minnesota sites; or
3.35(5) other methods as determined by the commissioner.
4.1(b) The commissioner is encouraged to use revenue provided through the Elementary
4.2and Secondary Education Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act for
4.3assistance under paragraph (a).
4.4(c) The Response to Intervention Center assistance initiative shall have the following
4.5responsibilities:
4.6(1) assist the commissioner to develop rules as provided by this section;
4.7(2) develop RtI guidelines for district sites and chartered schools to enable them to
4.8plan and implement an RtI model consistent with the rules of the commissioner;
4.9(3) provide professional development, coaching, and consultation for sites on the
4.10RtI rules and guidelines including scientifically based instruction within a multitiered
4.11model of instructional supports, standards aligned instruction, and the use of formative
4.12assessment to guide instructional decision making;
4.13(4) collaborate with ServeMinnesota for the services of reading and math master
4.14coaches to assist sites with interventions;
4.15(5) collaborate with education departments at higher education institutions to
4.16incorporate the RtI research into applicable licensure programs;
4.17(6) consult with the commissioner of education to evaluate the learning and financial
4.18impact of the RtI model in Minnesota;
4.19(7) disseminate models for evaluating classroom reading curriculum to better ensure
4.20that student needs will be met; and
4.21(8) disseminate research-based interventions to be used with students who are not on
4.22target to meet the proficiency standards in reading and mathematics.
4.23 Sec. 2. STATEWIDE TESTING COMMITTEE.
4.24Notwithstanding any other law or rule to the contrary, the commissioner of education
4.25shall establish a committee with the education research community and the vendor of the
4.26state testing program for the following purposes:
4.27(1) determine how the state test can be of greater formative assessment value for
4.28educational decision-making purposes for individual students. The purpose shall be to
4.29reduce the need for sites to use both the state test for accountability purposes and a second
4.30for formative assessment purposes;
4.31(2) how the state test can be administered in fall, winter, and spring for benchmarking
4.32purposes if the sites choose to do so;
4.33(3) add a value added analysis provision;
4.34(4) determine predictive validity of the state test to career pathways as a part of the
4.35World's Best Workforce Program defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 120B.11;
5.1(5) determine how estimated targets on the state test are equivalent to the National
5.2Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP), Trends in International Mathematics and
5.3Science Study (TIMSS), and Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA).
5.4This will enable sites to make international comparisons; and
5.5(6) other tasks as determined by the commissioner.
